update_mcp_integration_capabilities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context: reversible toggle, immediate exposure, and that only named capabilities are affected. No contradictions. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but annotations already indicate non-destructive and idempotent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then key behavioral points. Every sentence is purposeful and concise. No fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (bulk update with multiple capability types), the description is self-sufficient. It explains purpose, usage, side effects, and prerequisite data sources. The output schema existence is not critical as it mentions a confirmation message.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the effect of the array (state toggle), reversibility, and the immediate visibility. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with 'Bulk enable or disable capabilities (tools, prompts, resources) on an MCP integration,' clearly specifying the verb (enable/disable), resource (capabilities on an MCP integration), and distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_mcp_integration and list_mcp_integration_capabilities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit context: reversible toggle, not deletion; only named capabilities change state; immediate for connected users; re-running with enabled flipped restores them. It also instructs to source the integration id from list_mcp_integrations and current states from list_mcp_integration_capabilities. No direct when-not-to-use, but implied through reversibility.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.